Hello. My name is Helen Thomas. I'm a Liberal. ( Also known as a "Dead-Ender" ) Do you want me to speak for you? All you will have to do is pony up a paltry Twelve THOUSAND Five HundredDollars ... thank you.
If we stuck to the dictionary, there's no way anybody would call today's leftists "liberal". Except on the issues of letting people kill babies and letting sand Nazis kill Americans, they're not very liberal at all.
Hey Helen, whats wrong with being beautiful?
I can't wait until they unplug her respirator.
Apparently Helen knows nothing about true compassion....only the "liberal" brand of making and keeping people dependent. And, I find it interesting that she (from her "lofty" perch in media) only preaches about compassion, while the president does compassion.
"What's Wrong With Being Liberal?"
I don't know....
How about everything!
Bush's shrill derision of liberalism seems to be a sign of political desperation these days
yeah he's real desparate. I mean Republicans only have the presidency, the house, the senate, the govenorships, and soon the Supreme Court. I suspect someone's deperate but I doubt its the president. And don't just just love how swamp thing can go on about how evil conservatives are at the same time acccusing the president of "shrill derision". What a loser.
Just look at this recent election--John Kerry recoiled at being labeled a liberal as a vampire would recoil from a cross. Obviously he thinks there's something wrong with being a liberal.
"This is the conservative who created the jobs that paid the people who paid huge taxes to the government who used their taxes to crush the businesses that created the jobs......"
Oops, requires logic and critical thinking. Libs will never get it.
I would like to be the first to graciously thank you for not searching for any pictures to include with this post :)
She's one of the primary reasons I wouldn't want to be liberal, leftist, communist demoncRAT.
They're compassionate -- with other people's money.
Helen, you ignorant hag, why don't you ask your heroes John Fop Kerry, or Hillary Rodham Clinton what's wrong with being and calling yourself a liberal?
PS: This stuff is to be filed yet again under "the libs will never get it".
I saw a graph of average charitable donations (as a percentage of AGI) plotted against the vote margin of each state in the presidential election. There was a statistically valid relationship in this data - the states that leaned heavy towards Kerry were tight in their giving. The heavy pro-Bush states were more generous. Swing states were in the middle.
I refuse to take seriously a mooing liberal cow with matching udders fore and aft
It's a fair question - what's wrong with being liberal? This is a large country, and there's plenty of room for opposing viewpoints. In fact, I'd argue that mulitple views and reasoned discussion make for better all-around policy.
However, Helen Thomas stating "George Bush is a rich idiot" is not reasoned debate, nor is it a liberal mindset. In fact, it's a closed mindset, resistant to any questioning.
Where to even begin with such a stupid article.
The denotative meaning of liberal is irrelevant to the political meanig of the word. "Liberal" as compassionate? "Liberal" as generous?
How bout lets just stick to politcs and say liberal as socialist. Frankly I tend to think that liberals have given themselves the label so as to mask their true underlying motives that have nothing to do with being generous and compassionate.
Before Helen lays claim to such characteristics and goes around criticizing Bush for lacking them...lets look at the basics. How much money did Helen Thomas give to charity as a portion of her income in say 1998...I know Bush gave a significant amount..I would have to dig up the numbers but Bush's tax returns show a pattern of consistent cheritable giving...ironically the "liberal" candidate's tax returns were suspiciously lacking in that regard...also on a consistent basis.
It would be interesting to see Helens and I acknowledge that this is pure conjecture but I wouldbe willing to be she doesnt give much. In a sense there is even proof of this in her article...She criticizes Bush for undermining government welfare programs in favor of faith based programs. This would seem to intimate that Helen does not believ in private charities but relies on teh government to provide for people. In light of the fact that there is almost no viable argument that government is better at charitable assitence than private charities are one would almost have to ask Helen just where does her ompassion lie..for the government or for the people that they are teoretically trying to assits. Since private institutions do a much better job..if actually helping people were her priority then you woudl think she would be supportive of such a notion.
The same argument can be applied to our education system. In light of the fact that private education institutions CONSISTENTLY outpreform public institutions you would think that if the goal was to actually educate people than she would be in favor of programs that provide opportunities to underprivilaged so that they might gain access to better education options.
Just where is the forward, compassionate, generous thinking in wanting to continue with social security system that is going bankrupt, provide no real social support mechanism, and is liitle more than a back door tax on income ratehr than trying to reform the system into somethign that coudl actually realize a legitimate return toward peoples retirements.
This is the problem with liberals. They like to sit around talking about how progressive they are even though their "prgressive" ideas never seem to work. They like to say how generous are, even though when you look at their tax returns they dont seem to be any more giving then others and frequently are less so. They like to say how they are for the underprivilaged even though they are opposed to any program that actually gets them off of government assistance and moving forward with a more productive rewarding life. In short liberals love to talk about how great they are even though their record fundamentally stinks.
For my part I would prefer for them to put their money where their mouth is instead of their mouth where their mouth is. Until then all of their platitudes are meaningless and I will continue to call use liberal in the political sense.
One more example of "the rage of the drowning."